No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAfter breast-conserving radiation therapy most patients experience acute skin toxicity to some degree. This may impair patients’ quality of life, cause pain and discomfort. In this study, we investigated treatment and patient-related factors, including genetic polymorphisms, that can modify the risk for severe radiation-induced skin toxicity in breast cancer patients.MethodsWe studied 377 patients treated at Ghent University Hospital and at ST.-Elisabeth Clinic and Maternity in Namur, with adjuvant intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Women were treated in a prone or supine position with normofractionated (25 × 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (15 × 2.67 Gy) IMRT alone or in combination with other adjuvant therapies. Patient- and treatment-related factors and genetic markers in regulatory regions of radioresponsive genes and in LIG3, MLH1 and XRCC3 genes were considered as variables. Acute dermatitis was scored using the CTCAEv3.0 scoring system. Desquamation was scored separately on a 3-point scale (0-none, 1-dry, 2-moist).ResultsTwo-hundred and twenty patients (58%) developed G2+ dermatitis whereas moist desquamation occurred in 56 patients (15%). Normofractionation (both p < 0.001), high body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), bra cup size ≥ D (p = 0.001 and p = 0.043) and concurrent hormone therapy (p = 0.001 and p = 0.037) were significantly associated with occurrence of acute dermatitis and moist desquamation, respectively. Additional factors associated with an increased risk of acute dermatitis were the genetic variation in MLH1 rs1800734 (p=0.008), smoking during RT (p = 0.010) and supine IMRT (p = 0.004). Patients receiving trastuzumab showed decreased risk of acute dermatitis (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe normofractionation schedule, supine IMRT, concomitant hormone treatment and patient related factors (high BMI, large breast, smoking during treatment and the genetic variation in MLH1 rs1800734) were associated with increased acute skin toxicity in patients receiving radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery. Trastuzumab seemed to be protective.

No abstract

In this series, setup accuracy is significantly worse in prone compared to supine position for the LA and LO directions. However, without proper image-guidance, uncertainty margins of about 1 cm are also necessary for supine WBI. For patients with a higher BMI, larger margins are required.

BackgroundProne whole breast irradiation (WBI) leads to reduced heart and lung doses in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. In this feasibility trial, we investigated the prone position for whole breast + lymph node irradiation (WB + LNI).MethodsA new support device was developed for optimal target coverage, on which patients are positioned in a position resembling a phase from the crawl swimming technique (prone crawl position). Five left sided breast cancer patients were included and simulated in supine and prone position. For each patient, a treatment plan was made in prone and supine position for WB + LNI to the whole axilla and the unoperated part of the axilla. Patients served as their own controls for comparing dosimetry of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in prone versus in supine position.ResultsTarget volume coverage differed only slightly between prone and supine position. Doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in prone position for ipsilateral lung (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), contralateral lung (Dmean, D2), contralateral breast (Dmean, D2 and for total axillary WB + LNI also V5), thyroid (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), oesophagus (Dmean and for partial axillary WB + LNI also D2 and V5), skin (D2 and for partial axillary WB + LNI V105 and V107). There were no significant differences for heart and humeral head doses.ConclusionsProne crawl position in WB + LNI allows for good breast and nodal target coverage with better sparing of ipsilateral lung, thyroid, contralateral breast, contralateral lung and oesophagus when compared to supine position. There is no difference in heart and humeral head doses.Trial registrationNo trial registration was performed because there were no therapeutic interventions.

BackgroundEarly stage breast cancer patients are long-term survivors and finding techniques that may lower acute and late radiotherapy-induced toxicity is crucial. We compared dosimetry of wedged tangential fields (W-TF), tangential field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT) and multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT) in prone and supine positions for whole-breast irradiation (WBI).MethodsMB-IMRT, TF-IMRT and W-TF treatment plans in prone and supine positions were generated for 18 unselected breast cancer patients. The median prescription dose to the optimized planning target volume (PTVoptim) was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the PTVoptim and organs-at-risk.ResultsProne MB-IMRT achieved (p<0.01) the best dose homogeneity compared to WTF in the prone position and WTF and MB-IMRT in the supine position. Prone IMRT scored better for all dose indices. MB-IMRT lowered lung and heart dose (p<0.05) in supine position, however the lowest ipsilateral lung doses (p<0.001) were in prone position. In left-sided breast cancer patients population averages for heart sparing by radiation dose was better in prone position; though non-significant. For patients with a PTVoptim volume ≥600 cc heart dose was consistently lower in prone position; while for patients with smaller breasts heart dose metrics were comparable or worse compared to supine MB-IMRT. Doses to the contralateral breast were similar regardless of position or technique. Dosimetry of prone MB-IMRT and prone TF-IMRT differed slightly.ConclusionsMB-IMRT is the treatment of choice in supine position. Prone IMRT is superior to any supine treatment for right-sided breast cancer patients and left-sided breast cancer patients with larger breasts by obtaining better conformity indices, target dose distribution and sparing of the organs-at-risk. The influence of treatment techniques in prone position is less pronounced; moreover dosimetric differences between TF-IMRT and MB-IMRT are rather small.